[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 181 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8535-H8544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3043, HYDROPOWER POLICY
MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
3441, SAVE LOCAL BUSINESS ACT
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 607 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 607
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3043) to modernize hydropower policy, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3441) to
clarify the treatment of two or more employers as joint
employers under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and
(2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 607 provides for
consideration of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of
2017, and H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act.
H.R. 3043 would modernize Federal regulatory permitting processes for
the licensing of hydropower projects. Specifically, the bill would
designate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, as the
lead agency for these projects.
I am a proud supporter of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that
allows for not only American energy independence, but for American
energy dominance.
{time} 1230
Hydropower should be a part of that strategy. In the Pacific
Northwest especially, hydropower is a clean and reliable energy source
that is particularly abundant. There is remarkable potential for the
hydropower industry in this region and around the United States.
In 2015, hydropower accounted for approximately 6 percent of total
U.S. electricity generation and 46 percent of electricity generation
from renewable sources. However, less than 3 percent of dams in the
U.S. produce electricity. That shows just how great the potential is
here.
Through this legislation, we can help ease regulatory burdens and
streamline the permitting process by naming FERC as the lead agency for
coordinating all Federal authorizations. This will result in balanced
and more timely decisionmaking and reduce the current duplicative
oversight regime.
So how does this benefit the average American?
Well, having a reliable power source is essential to the world today.
Even more, this legislation also has the potential to lower energy
costs and create good-paying jobs. By doing so, we can help Americans
put away and keep more of their hard-earned money.
Currently, the hydropower industry employs a workforce of
approximately 143,000 people, and that number would certainly rise
under this legislation as we unlock our full potential.
Now, some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that this
legislation could hurt the environment, so I want to address that.
First, hydropower is an entirely clean source of renewable energy.
Increasing hydropower production actually helps protect the environment
and promote better public health.
Second, the legislation makes clear that these permitting reforms
should have no effect on this Clean Water Act, the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rivers and Harbors
Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Those laws and their
protections will remain in place.
This is simply about promoting a reliable power source, lowering
energy costs, creating jobs, and unlocking the full potential of an
all-of-the-above energy strategy.
Mr. Speaker, I will also note that this rule will provide for
consideration of four amendments to H.R. 3043, including one minority
and one bipartisan amendment.
The other bill covered by the rule is H.R. 3441, the Save Local
Business Act. As the sponsor of this legislation, I am thrilled to see
this body taking action to protect millions of jobs and provide clarity
to America's workers.
Jesus said that no man can serve two masters, and there is real
wisdom behind what He said as there is wisdom behind everything He
said. His teachings are important every day, but that basic principle
seems particularly important in the context of this legislation.
For decades, there was a commonsense legal test that determined when
two or more separate businesses could be considered joint employers and
held jointly responsible for the same group of employees. Employers had
to share direct and immediate control over essential terms and
conditions of employment. As a former labor and employment attorney who
practiced in this area for decades, I can assure you this was the
standard that everyone knew and appreciated.
Well, in 2015, the activist National Labor Relations Board issued a
ruling
[[Page H8536]]
in Browning-Ferris Industries that upended this cornerstone of Federal
labor law and created a vague and totally unworkable new joint employer
policy.
Making matters even worse and more complicated, Federal agencies then
incorporated the new standard in their regulatory agenda. Under this
new standard, two independent businesses could be considered joint
employers if they make a business agreement that ``indirectly'' or
``potentially'' impacts their employees. Under some of these standards,
you can actually be reserved power.
Just think about the uncertainty and ambiguity this standard could
cause. It is hard enough for people to even agree on what exactly those
terms mean. Imagine how confusing it is for Main Street businesses to
understand and follow that.
This is not some abstract issue. In fact, I have been hearing and
talking with job creators and workers in my district about this for
years. I have sat around the restaurant tables and heard real stories
and concerns.
Bob Omainsky, the owner of Wintzell's Oyster House in my home
district, had this to say about the confusion caused by the new joint-
employer standard: ``If we hire an outside landscaping company to keep
our lawns lush, I could be considered a joint employer if I show the
landscapers where to mow. Or, if I contract a food supplier for certain
ingredients, I could become part of a lawsuit if one of their workers
complains about overtime pay. The uncertainty is nothing more than
governmental overreach that is crippling eateries like Wintzell's and
discouraging growth throughout the restaurant industry.''
This story and example is not unique to my district. These stories
exist all over the country from Seattle, Washington, to Miami, Florida;
and we heard a whole bunch of them in the hearings that we held in
committee. This is why this bill has earned support from both sides of
the aisle. This is not a partisan issue, but instead this is about
protecting jobs and providing clarity to workers.
Workers shouldn't have to wonder who their employer is. They deserve
better than a vague and confusing rule that the American Action Forum
found threatens 1.7 million jobs. Even the Progressive Policy Institute
issued a statement saying the expanded standard ``may do more harm than
good.''
I also want to make one thing perfectly clear: this legislation does
not remove a single worker protection. All worker protections provided
by the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
the Equal Pay Act remain unchanged and are still available.
I also want to dispel the myth that this legislation is some
departure from the norm. In fact, this legislation simply restores the
agreed-upon legal standard that existed for decades.
The reality is that the new standard has created so much confusion
and ambiguity that no one really knows what the law is. There are at
least nine different legal tests nationwide to determine joint employer
status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and there are more to come.
This patchwork of standards creates regulatory uncertainty,
especially for job creators doing businesses in multiple States.
Ultimately, this legislation is about providing clarity to workers and
job creators. It is about protecting the rights of workers and ensuring
employers have clarity on their responsibilities to their employees,
and it is about preserving the small businesses that are the backbone
of our local communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and
the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule,
which provides for consideration of two deeply flawed pieces of
legislation.
H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, is yet
another attempt by this Republican majority to prioritize corporate
profits over ensuring people have access to safe and clean drinking
water.
This bill would not only threaten our clean water, it would also
undermine States' rights and Tribal rights by prioritizing power
generation above all else when deciding whether to grant or extend a
license to operate a hydropower project.
Simply put, this bill puts profits ahead of the public interest. By
giving a rubber stamp commission more power than other expert agencies,
the bill rigs the process in favor of power producers at the expense of
States, Tribes, and our environment.
This bill prioritizes profits over clean water and healthy fisheries
and should be strongly defeated. Protecting our families and our
environment should always be our first priority.
In another giveaway to corporate interests, House Republicans are
also bringing to the floor this week H.R. 3441, the so-called Save
Local Business Act, under the false claim that it eliminates
uncertainty for workers and protects small businesses.
The truth is a very different story, Mr. Speaker. Joint employment
standards ensure workers can hold employers accountable for violating
wage and hour laws, child labor, or refusing to collectively bargain.
This bill represents a significant and dangerous break from that
standard and would undermine the rights of American workers.
This legislation rewards companies that rent employees from staffing
agencies instead of hiring them directly, and allows them to evade
responsibility for upholding the rights of those employees, even though
they profit from their work.
This bill is not about helping workers or small businesses. This is
all about giving powerful companies even more power over their
employees.
But, Mr. Speaker, what is just as troubling as the content of the
underlying bills is the process Speaker Ryan and his Republican
leadership team routinely use to call up this terrible legislation.
Today we are considering the 49th completely closed rule of the 115th
Congress. That is right. Today House Republicans are breaking their own
record for the most closed session of Congress in history. It is
astounding. This is something you would celebrate in Putin's Russia,
not here in the United States.
Since he first took the gavel in 2015, Speaker Ryan has continue to
shamelessly break his promise to allow a fair and open legislative
process here in this House.
In Speaker Ryan's first speech as Speaker in October of 2015, he
said: ``We need to let every Member contribute. . . . Open up the
process. Let people participate. A neglected minority will gum up the
works. A respected minority will work in good faith. Instead of trying
to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority.''
Speaker Ryan and I disagree on a great many issues, but I strongly
agree with what he said in that 2015 speech. We do need to let every
Member contribute and open up the process here in the House. We do need
the majority party to respect the minority party so we can actually
work together on bipartisan solutions.
But in the 2 years since Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he has, sadly,
failed to deliver on his commitment to open up the legislative process.
Things have only gotten worse. In fact, Speaker Ryan is the only
Speaker who has not allowed a truly open rule to give Members the
opportunity and the chance to do what their constituents sent them here
to do and to offer different perspectives and ideas on how to improve
legislation.
With each new closed rule they bring to the floor, shutting out
amendments from both Democrats and Republicans, the cynical hypocrisy
grows louder and louder. Instead of the people's House, this has,
sadly, become ``only the people who agree with Paul Ryan's House.''
I guess my question for the Speaker would be: Did you mean any of
what you said? Did you forget all those promises you made? Or did you
have absolutely no intention of keeping those promises once you were in
power?''
Every single Member of this House of Representatives was elected to
represent the people of their district, but
[[Page H8537]]
we cannot do that if the party in the majority blatantly uses strong-
arm tactics like these that prevent us from doing our jobs.
In 2015, Speaker Ryan also said: ``We need to return to regular
order. We are the body closest to the people. Every 2 years, we face
the voters. . . . We represent them. We are supposed to study up and do
the homework that they cannot do. So when we do not follow regular
order--when we rush to pass bills a lot of us do not understand--we are
not doing our job. Only a fully functioning House can truly represent
the people.''
Where do I begin?
Literally just a few months ago, Speaker Ryan and the Republican
leaders of this House were recklessly steamrolling their healthcare
bill to the House floor without holding anything close to the number of
hearings that we held when the Affordable Care Act was passed.
Instead, they led a haphazard process where the bill was drafted in
secret behind closed doors--locked doors--without any input from rank
and file Members of Congress and the American people. Mr. Speaker, that
is not regular order. That is unconscionable. That disrespects this
House.
Today, when asked by a reporter about this record-breaking closed
process, Speaker Ryan responded: ``Absolutely we have an open
process.''
Really?
Let's review his record this Congress: Zero open rules--zero. Forty-
nine completely closed rules.
Open process?
Open process my foot, Mr. Speaker.
I guess in the age of Donald Trump, words simply don't matter
anymore. Black is white, up is down, open is closed, and politicians
can say whatever they think sounds good and they think they can get
away with it--facts be damned.
If Speaker Ryan were serious about a fair and open process, he would
not turn this House into a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. He would let
us be the independent voice the people of our districts elected us to
be. He would not routinely shut out the voices of Democrats and
Republicans. He would let this House actually debate the serious
legislation and issues that come before us.
{time} 1245
With one closed rule after another on each bill that comes to the
floor, Speaker Ryan has completely shut out both Democrats and rank-
and-file Republicans, routinely blocking amendments we offer.
This is not how the Congress is supposed to work. Our constituents
deserve a Congress that actually debates the bills that will affect
their lives. They deserve better.
I refuse to sit by while the Republican leadership makes a mockery of
this House. American voices will not be silenced.
The Speaker may grant promises of openness, inclusiveness, and
regular order, but we just lived through the most closed year in the
history of this institution, and the year isn't even over yet, Mr.
Speaker.
Republicans ought to remember that they will not always be in the
majority. I don't think a Democratic majority could be this bad on
basic process, even if we tried. But any Member who votes for this
record-breaking closed rule today had better not have crocodile tears
for regular order and openness when they find themselves in the
minority some day in the future. Anyone who supports 49 closed rules
and zero open rules in a single year loses all credibility on the issue
of openness.
My Republican friends should be ashamed--ashamed--of diminishing this
House and diminishing its Members and their thoughtful ideas. I urge
Democrats and Republicans to take a stand and vote ``no'' on this
closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the work that the Rules
Committee has done this year and of the leadership in this Congress and
how we have handled legislation.
Unlike our Democratic colleagues who would shut the doors and refuse
to accept late amendments from Members, the chairman of our committee
has made it a point to ensure every single Member has the opportunity
to submit their amendments and come to the committee to share their
thoughts and concerns.
Under this model of transparency and openness, the committee has
spent countless hours listening and considering Member testimony. In
fact, we have welcomed over 330 Members to testify, this Congress
alone, before the Rules Committee. We have made in order 864
amendments, including 403 from Democrats, 341 from Republicans, and 120
bipartisan amendments.
Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle have become more
interested in derailing legislation than actually improving
legislation. For example, Democrats politicized an open appropriations
process by offering poison pill amendments meant to kill legislation
they had no intention of supporting, regardless of the outcome.
These tactics have fundamentally changed the way we do business.
Instead of offering thoughtful ideas intended to shape a measure, their
dilatory tactics are for one purpose and one purpose only: to score
political points.
The Rules Committee will not let these political games get in the way
of fulfilling the promises we made to the American people who elected
this majority. That is why the chairman of our committee has made it a
priority to listen to all Members. I would ask all of you who come to
the Rules Committee to watch our committee listening to all Members.
We are also committed to moving the majority's progrowth agenda
forward. As a result of our efforts, we have had a record of success in
this House. To date, we have passed almost 400 bills out of the House.
This further underscores that the House is here to work, we are here
to serve, and we are here to get results. But the proof is in the
facts. John Adams said: ``Facts are stubborn things.''
As of November 7 of this year, in just the first session of this
Congress, we have provided for the consideration of 864 amendments on
the House floor. Under Speaker Pelosi, during the entirety of the 111th
Congress, both sessions, she had only made in order 778. You tell me
who has an open House and who had a closed House.
There is no shame on this side at all. There is great pride in the
work we are doing for the American people, and we are not going to let
anyone get in the way of our making sure that we fulfill the promises
we made.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my friend, the
gentleman from Alabama, for letting me participate in this very
important debate today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but specifically to voice
my very strong support for one of the bills of the underlying
legislation. That would be H.R. 3043, which is the Hydropower Policy
Modernization Act of 2017.
This legislation, which is sponsored and spearheaded by my good
friend and fellow Washingtonian, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
will improve the licensing process for U.S. hydropower resources by
promoting accountability as well as transparency, by requiring greater
cooperation among Federal and State agencies, as well as by reducing
needless duplication of efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I am a strong, steadfast supporter of hydropower--I
admit that--which, as America's first renewable electricity source, has
provided our country with low-cost, clean, reliable energy for over a
century. In my own home State of Washington, nearly 70 percent of our
energy is derived from hydropower.
While there are still some misguided, extreme efforts to breach our
dams and remove these critical sources of electric generation, I
believe we need to increase our use of clean and renewable resources.
By passing the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act, we can take a very
major step in doing just that.
Mr. Speaker, FERC, or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
serves as the lead agency to coordinate hydropower reviews and convene
stakeholders to participate in collaborative,
[[Page H8538]]
transparent public proceedings. However, FERC lacks the authority to
improve the hydropower licensing process, including the ability to
resolve disputes among agencies and enforce scheduling deadlines.
Far too often, it is those Federal and State agencies, as well as
other bureaucratic bodies, that stand in the way of moving these
licensing efforts forward. In fact, in response to a House Energy and
Commerce Committee's subcommittee hearing, FERC reported that there are
26 separate cases where the Commission has finished its environmental
review and is currently waiting for action to be completed by another
agency before FERC can issue a decision on any particular project.
Mr. Speaker, the licensing process for these projects should not be
taking 10 years or more. Natural gas-fired facilities and other carbon-
based energy sources are being approved in considerably less time.
Meanwhile, less than 3 percent of the dams in this country produce
electricity.
I will continue to support efforts to increase hydropower generation
that will provide our country with reliable, stable, and clean energy.
We can usher in a new era of U.S. energy independence derived from our
very first renewable energy source by streamlining these processes.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and, particularly,
its underlying legislation, H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy
Modernization Act of 2017.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thought I had heard everything. The gentleman from
Alabama got up and said how proud he is of the Rules Committee and of
the process in this House. Oh, my God. The fact that the gentleman
would get up and say that with a straight face, you take my breath
away. It is unbelievable.
Today, we are considering our 49th closed rule of the 115th Congress,
officially making this the most closed session in Congress in history,
and the gentleman is proud of that.
More than half of the rules Republicans have reported out of the
Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments. That means that no
Member, Democrat or Republican, can offer their ideas on the House
floor.
The gentleman says: Well, we want to prevent killer amendments from
being made in order. So all the Republicans that offer amendments to
the Rules Committee have killer amendments? It is ridiculous to say
that about the Democratic amendments.
In total, just so the gentleman understands this, in total, the Rules
Committee has blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is
1,300. They are all killer amendments? They are all not deserving of a
debate in the people's House?
They blocked 1,300 amendments, including 955 Democratic amendments.
You blocked 260 Republican amendments and 121 bipartisan amendments.
Blocking these amendments has a very real impact. A bad process
produces bad policy. Shutting out input from the vast majority of
Members, both Democrats and Republicans, may make it easier for you to
jam your agenda through the House, but that speed comes at the expense
of the policy itself.
When you block amendments, you are shutting down debate on incredibly
important issues, issues that this House of Representatives should be
debating and voting on.
Here are a few examples of germane amendments that the majority
didn't think were worthy of a debate and an up-or-down vote in the
House. These were totally in order.
There is my bipartisan amendment to require a Presidential
determination and congressional action to increase troop levels in
Afghanistan. With the longest war in American history, I thought maybe
it was worth some debate, but the Rules Committee said no to that.
Also, a bipartisan amendment to phase out the 2001 Authorization for
Use of Military Force, they blocked that.
Also, an amendment to ensure that the U.S. doesn't withdraw from the
Paris climate agreement--I know my Republican friends think climate
change is a hoax. They don't believe in science. But, you know what?
You ought to have the guts to debate it. But you blocked it.
You blocked an amendment for funding for troops in Syria.
You blocked an amendment to create the National Russian Threat
Response Center.
The list goes on and on and on.
These aren't killer amendments. These are important issues that get
blocked time and time again. These issues are at the very core of our
responsibilities here in Congress, and you blocked them from even being
considered by the full House.
In this Congress, the majority has blocked over 1,300 amendments from
coming to the floor. You are proud of that? That is disgraceful.
I truly hope that breaking the closed rule record is a wake-up call
and that some of you over there will decide to do things a little bit
differently around here and a little bit better around here, starting
next week with your tax bill, but I am not going to hold by breath.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Ellison).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would request that all Members
direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the
Republican effort to roll back the joint-employer rule that the Obama
administration promulgated. This joint-employer rule is an attack on
workers, and it is an attack on franchisee businesses.
For people watching, Mr. Speaker, understand that when a franchisor,
the big headquarters, tells a franchisee, ``You have got to do every
single thing we tell you. You basically work for us. We are going to
tell you the size of the sandwich. We are going to tell you the kind of
oil to use. We are going to tell you how to schedule your workers. We
are going to, basically, control your enterprise, though you are
supposed to be an independent business,'' the Obama administration
said, ``We are going to treat you as if you are joint employers.'' So
if there is wage theft or there is unfairness on the job or some
problem that comes up with workers, then the big company, the
headquarters, will also be held responsible for solving the problem.
What the Republicans do today, Mr. Speaker, is say: ``No, we might
impose all these conditions on you per the franchisee agreement, but,
if there are problems, it is going to be your problem, franchisee.''
This is absolutely unfair. As workers are going all over this country
trying to get higher wages, this is a whole movement for them to get
livable wage for people who work every single day at our fast-food
chains. They are going to their local franchisee owners to ask for
those wages.
But if the franchisor says: ``You can't pay any more than this. We
are going to restrict you in multiple number of ways. We are going to
make you sell food items at a cost that you can't even sustain, like
the dollar menu''--those things cost more than a dollar, folks. But if
the big headquarters says you have got to charge a dollar as a
promotion, then the franchisee has to eat that.
But when workers need more money, the big company makes that
impossible, and then workers are left holding the bag along with the
franchisee.
The joint-employer rule, holding both sides responsible for those
wage thefts to pay for hours, these things make a more fair process and
require the big headquarters to take responsibility as well.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this. This is an antiworker bill. This is an
anti-small business bill, which is somewhat surprising to me, given
that my friends on the other side of the aisle say they are for small
business, but, really, they are just for big business. If you have any
doubts about that, all you have got to do is look at this tax bill they
are putting out there.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when I was giving the statistics earlier, I left one
very important one out. I can't believe I forgot this.
Of the almost 400 bills we passed in this House this year, 80 percent
of them have been bipartisan. So this record production of bills we
have had in the House this year has benefited both sides of the aisle
as we have
[[Page H8539]]
worked together to come up with commonsense policies for the American
people.
{time} 1300
I am very proud of that work and that progress we have made in this
House. The gentleman from Minnesota acted as if this bill, the Save
Local Business Act, is something to benefit big companies, but let me
tell you who I, and virtually all of us who are supporting this bill,
have heard from: small businesses in our districts that are begging us
to pass this bill.
I have had dozens of meetings in my own district. I know of hundreds
of meetings that have been held across the country between Members of
this House on both sides of the aisle and small businesses in their
districts that say: Please pass this bill.
This isn't for the big businesses in America. This is for the small,
Main Street businesses in our communities and for the people who work
there.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Norman), one of the newest Members of the House who
has already made a distinguished mark here.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in adamant support of the rule
and, in particular, of H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act.
Let me say for my good friend from Massachusetts, you know, the
amendments that he is referring to that have been rejected, they have
been rejected because they are against small business and they are for
Big Government, which American voters have rejected and will continue
to reject.
It may be cliche to say that small and local businesses are the
backbone of our economy, but, at the end of the day, there is no
denying that statement. Small businesses truly are the engine that keep
our economy moving, and when they suffer, our whole economy suffers.
Just take the last 8 years with the minimal growth that we have had.
Since 2015, when the National Labor Relations Board adopted an expanded
definition of the joint employers standard, upending decades of
precedent and redefining who an employer is, there has been much
confusion and ambiguity. For example, since then, there have been over
65,000 letters sent to Congress expressing confusion and asking for
clarity in the aftermath of this rule.
This is unacceptable. Locally owned franchises are America's unseen
small businesses, and in my district alone, the Fifth District of South
Carolina, there are roughly 2,000 establishments that provide over
15,000 jobs with an economic output of over $1 billion.
Small business development, economic growth, and entrepreneurs will
continue to be hurt by the National Labor Relations Board's excessive
broad definition of the term ``joint employer.'' Until Congress finds a
concrete solution with this piece of legislation, it will continue to
do so.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides clarity for small and local
businesses as to what it means to be a joint employer, restoring
necessary clarity for employers and employees alike.
I strongly encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to support this bipartisan bill helping small businesses all across the
Nation, and I congratulate the Congressman from Alabama for proposing
this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ellison) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from
United Steelworkers urging a ``no'' vote on the joint employer bill.
United Steelworkers,
Pittsburgh, PA, November 1, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 members of
the United Steelworkers (USW), I strongly urge you to oppose
H.R. 3441, the ludicrously named ``Save Local Business Act''.
The bill has virtually nothing to do with small businesses
but will greatly restrict the definition of employer under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Targeting a National Labor Relations Board decision,
Browning-Ferris Industries, H.R. 3441 is not only drafted to
repeal a decision where the employer tried to avoid
collective bargaining responsibilities through
subcontracting, but radically changes the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Currently, under the FLSA, employers cannot
hide behind labor contractors or franchisees when they set
conditions of employment. H.R. 3441 strips nearly a century
of workforce protections to give large employers almost
unfettered ability to hide from long established employer
responsibilities.
The rise in temporary or precarious work in the United
States is fast becoming an unfortunate norm in the economy. A
recent study on the rise of temporary employment found the
proportion of American workers engaged in ``alternative
work'' jumped from 10.7% to 15.8% in the last decade. When in
the last decade 94% of net job growth is in the alternative
work category, workers continuously find themselves unable to
seek remedy for their grievances or an ability to
collectively hold their ultimate employer accountable. H.R.
3441 will accelerate the growth of job-instability as
employers will be able to manipulate the system to avoid
collective bargaining by hiring temporary employees or
contractor employees.
Congress' responsibility to American workers in this time
of rising income inequality and precarious work must be to
improve access to collective bargaining and stop employer
circumvention of U.S. labor laws, not to weaken them. H.R.
3441 strips workers of another tool to hold their employers
accountable. A vote for this legislation is a vote against
working people and the right to democratic representation in
the workplace. I urge you to vote no on H.R. 3441.
Sincerely,
Leo W. Gerard,
International President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the
Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance, which says that this
legislation would not benefit small businesses that create good jobs.
It actually would place such employers at a permanent competitive
disadvantage to unscrupulous companies that seek to thrive solely at
the expense of the workers and taxpayer-funded social safety net
programs.
Signatory Wall and
Ceiling Contractors Alliance,
Saint Paul, MN, October 5, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf
of the Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance
(SWACCA) to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3441, the
``Save Local Business Act.'' This legislation will not
benefit honest small businesses that create good jobs with
family-sustaining wages and benefits. It will actually place
such employers at a permanent competitive disadvantage to
unscrupulous companies that seek to thrive solely at the
expense of their workers and taxpayer-funded social safety-
net programs.
SWACCA is a national alliance of wall and ceiling
contractors committed to working in partnership with our
workers and our customers to provide the highest-quality,
most efficient construction services. Through the superior
training, skill, and efficiency of our workers SWACCA
contractors are able to provide both cost-effective
construction services and middle class jobs with health and
retirement benefits. Our organization prides itself on
representing companies that accept responsibility for paying
fair wages, abiding by health and safety standards, workers
compensation laws, and unemployment insurance requirements.
Unfortunately, however, we increasingly find ourselves
bidding against companies that seek to compete solely on the
basis of labor costs. They do so by relieving themselves of
the traditional obligations associated with being an
employer. The news is littered with examples of contractors
who have sought to reduce costs by willfully violating the
laws governing minimum wage, overtime, workers compensation
unemployment insurance, and workplace safety protections. The
key to this disturbing business model is a cadre of labor
brokers who claim to provide a company with an entire
workforce that follows them to job after job. It is a
workforce that the actual wall or ceiling contractor controls
as a practical matter, but for which it takes no legal
responsibility. In this model workers receive no benefits,
are rarely covered by workers compensation or unemployment
insurance, and are frequently not paid in compliance with
federal and state wage laws. The joint employment doctrine is
an important means for forcing these unscrupulous contractors
to compete on a level playing field and to be held
accountable for the unlawful treatment of the workers they
utilize.
As an association representing large, medium, and small
businesses, we oppose H.R. 3441 because it proposes a
radical, unprecedented re-definition of joint employment
under both the FLSA and the NLRA that goes far beyond
reversing the standard articulated by the NLRB in Browning-
Ferris or retuning to any concept of joint employment that
has ever existed under the FLSA since the Act's passage. H.R.
3441's radical and unprecedented redefinition of joint
employment would proliferate the use of fly-by-night labor
brokers by ensuring that no contractor using a workforce
provided by a labor broker would ever be deemed a joint
employer. This is because the bill precludes a finding of
joint employment unless a company controls each ``of the
essential terms
[[Page H8540]]
and conditions of employment (including hiring employees,
discharging employee, determining individual employee rates
of pay and benefits, day-to-day supervision of employees,
assigning individual work schedules, positions and tasks, and
administering employee discipline)''. H.R. 3441 goes further
by expressly countenancing a company using labor brokers
retaining control of the essential aspects of the workers'
employment in a ``limited and routine manner'' without facing
any risk of being a joint employer.
Simply put, H.R. 3441 would create a standard that would
surely accelerate a race to the bottom in the construction
industry and many other sectors of the economy. It would
further tilt the field of competition against honest, ethical
businesses. Any concerns about the prior administration's
recently-rescinded interpretative guidance on joint
employment under the FLSA or the NLRB's joint employment
doctrine enunciated in Browning-Ferris can be addressed in a
far more responsible manner. Make no mistake, H.R. 3441 does
not return the law to any prior precedents or standards. It
creates a radical, new standard. This standard will help
unethical employers get rich not be creating more value, but
instead by ensuring their ability to treat American workers
as a permanent pool of low-wage, subcontracted labor that has
neither benefits nor any meaningful recourse against them
under our nation's labor and employment laws.
On behalf of the membership of SWACCA, thank you in advance
for your attention to our concerns about this legislation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Wies,
President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to this point I have been making about
how this is now officially the most closed Congress in history, and I
think people need to keep that in mind before they vote for this rule.
But the gentleman from Alabama, again--I guess in this age of Trump,
I mean, you can twist things all kinds of different ways, you know--
bragged about all this great bipartisanship here. In that number that
he was referring to, a number of bills that were supported in a
bipartisan way, a big chunk of them are things like naming post
offices, suspension bills that are not controversial, Hats Off to
Teachers Day, those types of bills.
But on major legislation, whether it is healthcare or whether it is
this crummy tax bill that they are going to be bringing up, this place
is polarized because they block out any competing ideas.
Let me again reiterate for my colleagues: the Rules Committee has
blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is just this year
alone.
Now, I already mentioned amendments on the AUMF, climate change,
Afghanistan, and more. I think those are important subjects. But the
Members offering these amendments, I think, no matter what you believe
about these amendments, deserve the right to be heard by the whole
House and to receive an up-or-down vote.
But here are a few more examples of the germane amendments that my
friends on the Republican side on the Rules Committee blocked under the
closed and structured rules. They blocked an amendment to prohibit the
repeal of DACA.
You know, I mean, 800,000 people's lives now are in the balance
because of Donald Trump rescinding the protection for these DREAMers,
and he said: Congress, you do it. You fix it.
Well, we tried to bring an amendment to the floor to have a debate
and fix it, and if my Republican friends don't want to vote for it,
they can vote ``no.'' But they blocked it. They blocked an amendment to
bar funds from being spent on this stupid, idiotic wall that the
President seems enamored with along our border. They blocked an
amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic violence and
child abuse. They blocked several amendments to ensure the Trump family
doesn't profit off the Presidency, and we all know that they are, but
we can't even have that debate.
They blocked an amendment to protect asylum seekers and human
trafficking victims, and they blocked an amendment to ensure victims of
incest can have access to abortion care. I can go on and on and on. I
mean, they blocked Congressman Grothman's budget amendment twice. He is
a Republican. It was germane. He even testified before the Rules
Committee, but you blocked it.
Last week, you blocked Representative Jimmy Duncan's amendment to
allow doctors to practice medicine out of State on a volunteer basis.
Germane. It may be a good idea. It deserves to be debated. You blocked
it.
Is that a poison pill? Is that what the gentleman was referring to?
You know, process matters, and it matters for this reason, because when
you have a lousy process, you end up with a lousy product.
I know it is not sexy to talk about process, you know, but it is
important. It is important that we do our jobs, we debate these issues,
and that we listen to Democrats and Republicans, you know, come before
us with ideas: some we may agree with, some we may not, but let's have
that debate. What is wrong with that? Why is that such a radical idea
in this place? To get up and say I am proud of this; I am proud that we
are now the most closed Congress in the history of our country? That is
something to be proud of?
I think that is something to be ashamed of. I think it diminishes
this House of Representatives, and it diminishes every single member of
this House, Democrats and Republicans alike.
This is supposed to be a deliberative body. Let's deliberate. Let's
not negotiate things in the back room and then rush it to the floor and
demand an up-or-down vote. You know, you don't have a monopoly on good
ideas, and there are people in your own party who have some good ideas,
too, and I think we have good ideas as well. And if you want
bipartisanship, true bipartisanship, and you want to end the
polarization, open the process a little bit. That would be helpful.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and very proud of the bipartisanship
that we have had in this House this year to pass all these bills. Let
me note just two very substantive bills, one last week and one today.
Last week, we passed a bill that got rid of this IPAB group that is
going to take money, is proposed to take money out of Medicare. It was
cosponsored by 45 Democrats, and dozens and dozens of Democrats voted
for it on the floor last week. Today, this Save Local Business Act is
bipartisan in its sponsorship and, I predict, on the vote of the floor
today.
Now, how important is that? Let me read to you just a few of the
organizations that support this bill: the American Hotel and Lodging
Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Associated
Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the
Coalition to Save Local Businesses, The Latino Coalition, National
Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers,
National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, U.S.
Travel Association, the Capital Research Center, Generation
Opportunity, Heritage Action for America, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the
Independent Women's Institute for Liberty, the James Madison Institute,
the National Taxpayers Union, the Tea Party Nation, Food Marketing
Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Apartment
Association, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the Workplace
Fairness Institute, and I could have dozens and dozens more.
The truth of the matter is, these are very important bills that we
bring before this floor, and most of them are bipartisan. The ones we
have today are bipartisan bills.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that this House has a lot to be proud
of, of the great work we have done this year, and I am most proud of
the fact that, in most of those cases, we have been working together.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right, we can work together and come
together in a bipartisan way to pass a post office bill, to name a post
office after somebody, but my friends didn't think it was important to
come together and work with us on improving the Affordable Care Act,
totally cut out of the process.
I am willing to bet that when the tax bill comes up, the tax bill
that is going
[[Page H8541]]
to give wealthy people a big tax break and raise taxes on a lot of
middle-income families, that will be a very closed process as well. So
yeah, you know, Hats Off to Teachers Day, naming post offices, stuff
that, I mean, Western civilization, as we know it, doesn't hinge upon,
yeah, there is lot of bipartisanship here.
We had a couple of bills yesterday that passed unanimously. I mean,
we had votes on them. They were noncontroversial. But when it comes to
anything really meaningful, there is no bipartisanship, and there is no
openness here.
Again, let me repeat, so my colleagues understand this. This is the
most closed session of Congress ever in history, and the year is not
even over yet. Today, we are considering the 49th closed rule of the
115th Congress, officially making it the most closed session of
Congress in history. More than half of the rules the Republicans have
reported out of the Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments.
They have blocked over 1,300 amendments.
Speaker Ryan now is the only speaker who has not allowed an open
rule. Speakers Boehner, Pelosi, Hastert, and Gingrich all allowed some
open rules. This is the first time we never had one.
Mr. Speaker, again, I would say to my colleagues, process matters,
and this is really a sad day for this House, for this institution, and
I hope my Republican friends think about it a little bit because you
are doing great damage to this institution, and that makes me very sad.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when we adopt this rule later on this afternoon, when we
adopt my bill, let me tell you who is going to be happy. Tens and tens
of thousands of small businesses and hundreds of thousands of their
employees across America, that is who is going to be happy.
And you know what, we are not here to make ourselves happy. We are
here to make the people who sent us here and expect us to do their
business, we are here to make them happy, and we are going to make them
happy today, as we have done over and over again this year, by passing
legislation that works for them, not for us.
So there may be some unhappiness in the room because we haven't made
every little amendment in order for this floor, but we have made the
amendments that matter to the American people, and, more importantly,
we passed legislation that matters to the American people, and I am
very proud of that, and the American people, indeed, are happy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues as well that the
bill that the gentleman from Alabama is talking about, his bill, when
it--in the Rules Committee last night, the Rules Committee thought it
was appropriate to block three germane amendments from the ranking
member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. I mean, that is
the process that we are dealing with here.
The ranking member of that committee does not have the opportunity to
bring his ideas to the floor and debate them and get a vote up or down
on it. That is not right, and the Rules Committee, unfortunately, is
becoming a place where democracy goes to die, where every good idea is
routinely shot down, and it has to stop.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous
question. And I want to say to my colleagues that, a month ago, I stood
at this very podium, following our Nation's deadliest mass shooting in
Las Vegas, asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that
we can begin to study gun violence.
{time} 1315
Now I stand here again, after yet another unthinkable tragedy,
begging my colleagues to allow us to take this small first step
following Sunday's deadly mass shooting at First Baptist Church in
Texas.
Twenty-six people in that church lost their lives to gun violence,
and that is from one single shooting. On an average day, 93 Americans
are killed with guns.
I would like to ask my colleagues again: What will it take?
If the deaths of those children in Sandy Hook Elementary School
weren't enough for Congress to take action, if the 49 lives lost in
Orlando weren't enough, if the 58 lives lost in Las Vegas weren't
enough, and if the 26 lives lost in Texas on Sunday aren't enough, then
nothing may ever be enough for Congress to have the courage to do the
right thing.
But I am hoping that is not true. Today we can decide to take the
first step in fighting gun violence with one vote. If we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.
Res. 367, which would establish the Select Committee on Gun Violence
Prevention.
It is time that we start having serious discussions about this
problem. Moments of silence and calls for prayer are not enough. We
have been doing that. It is time for us to get serious.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are bringing to the floor two bills today that I
think are bad bills. But, nonetheless, they represent the thinking of
the Republicans who are in charge of this Congress.
What is particularly distressing to me is that, on one of those
measures, it is being brought to the floor under a completely closed
process.
As I mentioned, last night, the ranking member of the Education and
the Workforce Committee came before the Rules Committee to offer three
germane amendments, and the Rules Committee said: No, you don't have
the right to have a debate on your ideas, even though they are
perfectly germane, on the House floor.
I think that is lousy. As a result, we come today and we make
history. This is now officially the most closed Congress ever in the
history of our country. My friends on the other side of the aisle are
getting up and talking about how proud they are. They talk about
bipartisanship. What they don't tell you is that most of the
bipartisanship are on things that really don't mean a lot: naming of
post offices and bills that pass by 435-0. On big things, on important
issues, they block us. I mentioned some of the things they blocked.
I know a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply
about the DREAMers, since Donald Trump decided to throw their fates
into the balance. They want to do something to help these young people,
many of whom came when they were 1 year old or 2 years old and know no
other country as their home but this country. We tried to fix that
legislatively, as the President said he wanted us to do, and the
Republican majority blocked us. They blocked us.
We tried to offer an amendment again to say let's not invest a
gazillion dollars on a border wall. Let's invest in our people. Let's
build up our infrastructure. Let's construct the finest railway system
in the United States--in the world--over the next decade. They blocked
us.
We had an amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic
violence and child abuse, and they blocked us.
We had an amendment to say we need to ensure that this culture of
corruption that we see in the White House doesn't grow any bigger, that
the Trump family doesn't benefit from the taxpayers, they don't benefit
financially from the taxpayers, and we were blocked on that as well.
Then we have been blocked on amendments to debate these wars that
have gone on for years and years. The war in Afghanistan is endless. It
is the longest war in American history. We can't have a debate on the
floor. We are
[[Page H8542]]
told that it is not appropriate and that it is not the right time.
The bottom line is, what my friends on the other side of the aisle
are doing is they are running this place in a very authoritarian way,
basically saying: It is our way, and that is it. It is our way or the
highway, and you don't matter.
Well, we have had enough. We have had enough of being shut out, and
we are not going to shut up. We are not going to sit by and allow this
pattern of closed rules and closed processes to continue without a
protest. This is a serious matter.
For the Speaker of the House in his press conference today to get up
and say, ``Oh, we have a very open house,'' I mean, where is he living?
That does not reflect the reality. Maybe Donald Trump can say those
kind of things that don't reflect reality, but the Speaker of the House
ought to know that today, under his leadership, this has become the
most closed House ever, and it diminishes this institution and it
diminishes every single Member of this institution.
So vote ``no'' on this rule. I urge my Republican friends, who care
about process, who want this place to be more deliberative, to vote
``no.'' Send a message to your leadership that you have had enough.
If you want more bipartisan legislation, if you want a less polarized
Congress, then open the process up a little bit. I have news for you,
if you do, maybe the popularity of Congress will go up a little bit. I
think we are at, like, 12 or 13 percent now. Maybe that might get you
up to 15 or 16 percent. But it is the right thing to do.
This is not the way we are supposed to run a legislative body. When
you do it this way, you end up with lousy legislation. Your healthcare
bill was a disaster. It reflected no input from anybody. Thank God the
Senate said no to it. We see the same thing going on with the tax bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so maybe we can bring up a little bit of a debate on the need
for a select committee to study gun violence. But, please, vote ``no''
on this. Please send a message to the Republican leadership that enough
is enough and we are tired of these closed rules.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again ask Members to direct
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a very open process. At the beginning, you
recognized me for an hour and I gave, as is customary, half of my time
to the other side so that they could present their side.
In our committee, the Rules Committee, we let anyone who wants to
come--any Member who wants to come and basically say whatever they want
to say for as long as they want to say it. We don't really have any
rules in the Rules Committee because we want to have it so open, we
want to give everybody such an opportunity, that we let everybody come
and say whatever they want. Then we take it all into account and we
make some amendments in order and some not.
Because we have done our job so well this year, we have had so many
bills in the House--and the House has passed them all--that this House
is just about a record-breaking House in terms of what we are passing.
Yes, our friends over in the Senate haven't passed a lot of them. I
don't think the American people like that. I think the American people
want the Senate to get to work like the House has been at work.
This is important work, and we are here to do it and not play games.
The bills that are under this rule are very important bills.
I have heard a lot about climate change. The gentleman may suggest
that people on our side of the aisle don't understand science. I am not
a scientist, but I do understand climate change. I do understand from
the people who are worried about it, and a lot of people are
legitimately worried about it. The only thing you can do about that is
to have alternative sources of energy.
Hydroenergy is one of those sources. You don't release any carbon
molecules in the air when you generate electricity using water. So one
of the bills addresses that.
The other bill--my bill--the Save the Local Business Act, is a very
important bill, a bipartisan bill. There are bipartisan sponsors on
this bill. As I said earlier, there are tens of thousands of businesses
around America and hundreds of thousands of employees of those
businesses that are aching for us to pass this bill.
So far from being small things that don't matter--by the way, saying
nice things about teachers isn't a small thing. I think it is a big
thing. These are important pieces of legislation, and I am proud of the
work that this House has done to make sure that we consider them and
pass them.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
607 and the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 607 Offered by Mr. McGovern:
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the resolution
(H. Res. 367) to establish the Select Committee on Gun
Violence Prevention. The first reading of the resolution
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the resolution are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the resolution and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules. After general
debate the resolution shall be considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions
in the resolution are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the resolution for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one
motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the resolution, then on the next legislative
day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order
of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the
resolution.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 367.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled
[[Page H8543]]
``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the
previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported
from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to
amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2)
Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for
the previous question on a resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the
opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper
amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate
thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on:
Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 182, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 610]
YEAS--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--182
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Brady (PA)
Bridenstine
Cummings
DesJarlais
Garrett
Hastings
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Pocan
Polis
Rice (SC)
Roybal-Allard
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1348
Messrs. HIMES, WALZ, and JONES changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). The question
is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 182, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 611]
AYES--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
[[Page H8544]]
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--182
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Brady (PA)
Bridenstine
Cummings
DesJarlais
Garrett
Hastings
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Pocan
Polis
Roybal-Allard
Scalise
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1357
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________